I have Evil Twin 74 since july and at first I was very sceptic about twin fins but I very wanted to try this. I don't like Evo... I prefer aggressive shapes like kode/acid ( I had A74 and A86).
I am disappointed Evil have a bad test in boardseekermag. Personally after 10 sessions in all conditions (sideon shore, side shore, side off shore with or without current and strong and light winds). I think Evil is easy to use with a fun feeling and a really more capacity to surf than a single board like evo or kode. I just test a hifly twin and not the other boards like quatro or other but I find that the notes of Evil are very low.

18th September 2008 02:51 AM

Doc

Sounds good.
Yep, figured that out already. I put the PA73 on top of an Evo70, turned out to have the exact same outline, apart from shorter tip&tail on the Evo.

Now let's see you guys EnKode the ET

Evil, Puuuure Evil

18th September 2008 02:20 AM

Ola_H

You can try some of my EVOs next session, Doc and if its light I can try your Moo.
®
BTW, the 06 PA73 is an Acidized EVO 70.

17th September 2008 06:29 PM

Doc

(I meant faster rocker than the EvilTwin, not than the Cult)

17th September 2008 06:26 PM

Doc

Wanted - Pure Evil

Well, I got my first twinfin about the same time as OlaH received his ET 74. Mine is a MooCustom, 88 liters, 58.5 wide and with an outline similar to RRD WaveCult, with width and thickness to spare around the straps. However, the rocker curve is a fair bit faster, so it planes really early and in a straight line, it's surprisingly FSW-ish in feel. However, it turns on a dime.
So, where am I going with this?
Well - thing is, I don't like the Evo feel. Of course, I haven't tried the XTV ones, so I might feel differently now, especially after sailing my twinfin. However, my all-time favourite singlefin board is the 2006 PureAcid. It's an amazing board, that carries 3.7 to 5.3 really comfortably and even can take a 5.7 with a larger fin if needed on travels. It's early to plane for a 73 liter board and the onshore performance is well above what's quoted in some tests, once you get to know the board. The only thing missing is the ability to make that magnificently tight topturn in onshore conditions without stalling. Even having ordered a new custom 75 liter twin I'm unwilling to part with my Acid. I've even started taking price offers for converting it to a twin, but I'm worried it may spoil it.

Well, you can see where I'm going with this - if the Evil Twin is the best twinfin for Evo addicts, when will you release a fast-rockered Pure Evil?
A Kode on steroids, if you will. I'm pretty sure it would rock!
.
.
.
Pleeeeeease :-)

17th September 2008 02:53 AM

Ola_H

Well, that (the comment on the boardseeker site) is a way to answer too and the "official claims" of the Evil Twins do mention powerful waves and good conditions and such things.

But while I'm not been involved with development like Scotty, I've been on an Evil Twin since june sailing what I think must be rather close to your UK stuff, namely various breaks in Sweden. Despite having my two fav boards the EVO 70 and 80 as well as the new marvellous EVO 66 in the quiver, I spent probably 80% of my time on the ET (74 in my case) sailing 4.0-5.3 in mostly cross on and onshore. The 20% on the EVOs were great too and these are fantastically high performing and very refined boards and a joy to "go back" to. But the reason I sailed the ET so much was because I had more fun on it. In those exact conditions. And I feel I improved my onshore wave riding a bit by using the ET.

That said, I can understand (and respect) where the comments in the test come from and I recognise them from many years of discussions on how the EVOs perform. EVOs have had a great success as kind of soft boards for intermediate wave sailors. In this context they are largely unproblematic. But when moving towards more "performance" sailing there are more mixed opinions. I believe there are two reasons. One depends on how EVOs get their amazing range which is by being controlled and kind of "damped" which makes them handle faster wave rides than other similar boards. Some riders want a sharper feedback and those will not "connect" with an EVO (but would probably like a Kode). The other reason is how you need to ride an EVO when you want to push it and this is where the comments in the test on the ET comes in. They say the ET likes a back foot type ride. True, both ETs and EVOs can be ridden this way and the wider tail might easily trick you into thinking its the only way to turn these boards. But to step up the performance and take the boards into the next level it is instead important to use the straight outline up front, bury some rail and use the shape of the board to govern the tail.

I was reminded of this when I started sailing slalom boards a few years ago. My first was an iSonic 101. After years only in wave boards, I was VERY overwhelmed by the large fin and was downright scared to jibe it at speed. I slowed down a lot and put all power I had on the tail, to force the mega wide tail and big fin into obeying my commands. It didn't work very well. Since I had no experience on slalom boards I didn't put much thinking into it. But after sailing the iS101 with e freeride sail, in a bit more relaxed mood and playing around with some carving 360s and stuff I suddenly found I could jibe it like a dream, even at speed and even in kind of nasty chop. When I thought about it I realised the trick was to take AWAY power from the tail and use the mid and front part of the board to turn. It's not exactly the same as bottom turning the EVO but it's an interesting story in that context.

So the trick - and its not so hard: when riding both EVOs and ETs in a radical way, take care to use that front rail (by dropping in with a slight bit of mast foot pressure). Once you do this the board will practically ride itself like Scotty says and go vert almost like on auto pilot when you release that front rail pressure. The ET works in a similar way, but you can enter the bottom turn more aggressively and take a higher line on the wave (if you want) which particularly in onshore opens up new possibilities and makes it such a super fun board.

So, trust that front rail and (to follow up that Hendrix quote) come on baby and let the good times roll.

17th September 2008 12:43 AM

HotIce

contradiction

I feel you are at odds with the official manufacturers reply in this case Starboard UK regards the Evil Twin board test.

14th September 2008 09:03 AM

Unregistered

et twin

So why do I think we have come up with a board better than the other manufacture's
well, this is because as always we've tried to make a board suit as many conditions as paossible, with a major objective being automated performance built into a board for how it responds to situations.

ie. When you place your rail into the wave how is it it going to carve around. when you hit the lip, does the tail want to project and release.
The parallel mid section is for when you weight the front foot and put pressure on this section of the board when driving through an onshore bottom turn. (ie clew out onshore riding )

Obviously I have read the report placed by Board seeker magazine. This was a most confusing piece of literature.

The part about onshore drive ad the clew first bottom turn was particularly amusing.

Ben Severne actually tested the Evil twin 80 against all the other brands in Tenerife which are exactly these conditions. He wrote back frothing how ell the board maintained onshore drive whilst being incredibly loose. The ultimate paradox.

In these conditions the critical factors are DRIVE through the extended bottom turn and then positive loose reaction with the lip, (Hip between the feet when weight and pressure is rocked back to outline curve between the feet, resulting in the tightest full rail driven turn of any board I have ridden.

Comment was made about the tail width being so much wider than the other boards in the test. What keeps a board moving through fatter sections of waves and maintains drive through longer drawn clew first bottom turn. I think you might find tail width. The longer chord width (Wide base fins) are also incorporated to enhance drive, good lift for upwind performance and a positive straight line planning feel.

I found the narrower chord fins way too skittish and prone to spin out when I tested them, and donít find the board particularly sticky, with the performance benefits being very clear.

I would also like to add that so far out of all the boards I have designed over the last twenty years, this is clearly my favorite so far, suitable in the broadest range of conditions I have ever been able to come up with.

to quote Jimmy Hendrix. (RE test reports) You can't believe everything see and hear. Can yoooouuuuuuu

regards scott mckercher

This thread has more than 10 replies.
Click here to review the whole thread.